You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Warm Fuzzy Tale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coined. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
If you're really a psychotherapist as you claim you are, you'd know that insulting anyone, casting aspersion, or anything even remotely resembling that is a form of abuse. Abuse is never ok, and is never acceptable from anyone, no matter what. I'd suggest you spend some time over at the TeaHouse which is a section geared to newcomers to help them familiarize themselves with how the Wiki works. That's not an insult either, it's a genuine inviation, whether or not you take it, is up to you. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj17:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peace Action, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Silver Spring. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Walmartsucks.com for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
This user talk page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this user talk pagehas not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.
This page was last edited by Jonesey95(talk | contribs) 16 months ago. (Updatetimer)
Walmartsucks.com was a website created by a "a disgruntled customer" which created a long running dispute with Wal-Mart.[1]Wal-Mart filed a case with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) against the walmartsucks.com website.[2] Wal-mart accused Kenneth J. Harvey, owner of walmartsucks.com, of attempting to extort money from Wal-Mart. Harvey asked Wal-Mart for 5 million dollars for the site. Harvey said it was "as a joke", what representatives of Wal-Mart called "extortion". "The WIPO [later] changed its opinion in light of US law."[3][4][5]
Background
"Wal-Mart's attorneys sent a letter threatening necessary action unless "[Richard L. Hatch]" (aka Kenneth J. Harvey) took [walmartsucks.com] down within 48 hours. Wal-Mart Stores then dropped efforts to close the site."Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).
COURT IN SESSION; intellectual property rights, litigation; Statistical Data Included Risk Management February 1, 2001:
"Take Walmartsucks.com. This highly critical site includes complaints and news articles in addition to airing dirty laundry that uses the names of Wal-Mart's upper-echelon management. Everyone has the right to express their opinion, but can they get away with using your trademarked name? Right now, they can.
Harvey, states the web domain walmartsucks.com was bought in June 2006 by Wal-Mart, and asks how.[2]
^REVENGE BY ANY OTHER WEB SITE NAME . . .;STORE SPAT BECOMES A WORLDWIDE DISPUTE, SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER (October 02, 2000). "...a case in which a cybersquatter in July (2000) lost the use of several variations of the name "walmartsucks" because the squatter demanded that Wal-Mart pay a ransom to stop him from publishing offensive material under the registered names."
^What's in a name?: A lot if it's your Internet domain name, St. John's Telegram (Newfoundland) (November 20, 2002). "...long-running domain dispute between Wal-Mart and Harvey over such domain names as walmartsucks.com and walmartcanadasucks.com. The cases were heard by two different panels -- Wal-Mart won the rights to the former name, while losing on the latter. These days, Harvey maintains another Web site called walmartsucks.org that encourages Wal-Mart customers to e-mail horror stories about the department store giant."
ICANN call it what I want The Economist September 09, 2000:
"[cybersquatter] Dan Parisi crops up again: he got into trouble earlier this year when he registered names of large corporations followed by "sucks" -- as in "microsoftsucks.com" and "walmartsucks.com". [WIPO] Arbitrators were not amused, ruling that unwary consumers might confuse these sites with the trademark holders' own."
UNPLUGGING THE PROTESTERS The Toronto Star September 7, 2000 Cybersquatters increasingly face lawsuits, not cheques Author says he asked Wal-Mart for $5 million in fees "as a joke."
The latest ruling involves Newfoundland author Kenneth Harvey, 38, who recently lost his battle with U.S. retail giant Wal-Mart Stores Inc. over control of two websites, walmartcanada.com and walmartcanadasucks.com, which he registered last February.
The ruling against Harvey came from the Geneva-based World Intellectual Property Organization or WIPO, an arbitrator in disputes over Internet domain names.
...They say Harvey registered the name walmartcanada.com in "bad faith," hoping to sell it to the retail giant for $5 million. When that failed, they say, he registered walmartcanadasucks.com in protest.
"I was amazed that they didn't have their Canadian name bought," says Harvey, who claims he registered it partly "to make some money" and partly as research for his 12th book, this one on the Internet.
He says he asked Wal-Mart for $5 million in consulting fees, for advice on what other websites potentially could be turned against the corporation, "as a joke."
Wal-Mart Canada official Andrew Pelletier [stated]: "This is not about free speech. He was trying to extort money from Wal-Mart. That's very clear."
...Wal-Mart...has done nothing so far to shut down a U.S. protest site, walmartsucks.com, Pelletier says. It logs complaints and features a storefront with "ANAL-MART" in big, red letters.
Books on the subject
"www.walmartsucks.com has received over 1,000,000 hits through the past three years."
Studies show, editing on wikipedia is stagnating. I have been an editor off and on wikipedia for 12 years. Wikipedia has become less and less welcoming for new editors because of more and more deletion and speed deletion rules. There is a very negative company culture about new edits here on wikipedia. Editors who encourage deletion of good faith edits are rewarded, editors who fight against this trend are banned or leave in frustration.
I remember when established editors posed as new editors, and almost everyone of their new pages were deleted. The larger community was infuriated, not by how new editors were shown to be treated, but that established editors would pose as new editors. I know there is a 80% chance that my article will be deleted within one hour of it being created. If I have no references, it is within 5 minutes.
I remember how Jimmy Wales blessed the wide spread deletion of hundreds of bibliography articles with no notice, writing on the editors talk page what a wonderful job he did.
I remember the secret offline collusion in the case - twenty or so editors were working together to disrupt wikipeda and get tens of thousands of articles deleted. Any other time the editors would be banned, but instead any editors who mentioned the case were warned.
I remember the dozens of articles from mainstream media that complained how an incredibly notable article was deleted often within 5 minutes.
I remember the episode wars over television shows. In which editors wanted to delete thousands of pages on all television series.
I remember how I quit uploading non-copyrighted images from the 1890s because they were always deleted in mass, even when I put the right tags on them.
I have been appalled at many of the really mean editors who have become administrators and the arbcoms. The arbcoms get Jimmy's blessing.
I have been disgusted at how established editors treat other new editors, describing their new article monitoring as "garbage men" stopping "garbage"
I am shocked that every time I see an old editors page from 2006 or before, who really fought for treating editors nicely, he has been banned or left in disgust. Every time.
There is a new trend the last couple of years. I am appalled at extremely ignorant editors deleting whole sections of articles citing copyright violations. They have absolutely no understanding of copyright. Fair use is ignored and deletion is emphasized.
Editors, especially new editors, are consistently treated like shit here by a like minded group of editors.
Sadly I see only one solution
I have come to one sad conclusion: That Jimmy Wales, the founder of this site, is the person most responsible for this trend. He is most responsbile for this site's negative company culture. I believe that it is in the best interest of the long term future of Wikipedia that Jimmy Wales step down. I beleive wikipedia needs a new company culture that is more inclusive and kind.
If you have a better idea how to change this trend, something that has never been tried before, I would love to hear it.
Thoughts?
Studies that show why Wikipedia editing is stagnating
The singularity is not near: slowing growth of Wikipedia
The rate of reverts-per-edits (or new contributions rejected) and the number of pages protected has kept increasing.
The greater resistance towards new content has made it more costly for editors, especially occasional editors, to make contribution. We argue that this may have contributed, with other factors, to the slowdown in the growth of Wikipedia.[6]
The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia’s Reaction to Popularity Is Causing Its Decline
University of Minnesota research finds the restrictiveness of the encyclopedia’s primary quality control mechanism against contributions made by newcomers and the algorithmic tools commonly used to reject contributions as key causes of the decrease in newcomer retention. The community’s formal mechanisms to create uniform entries are also shown to have fortified its entries against changes—especially when those changes are proposed by newer editors. As a result, Wikipedia is having greater difficulty in retaining new volunteer editors.
"Wikipedia has changed from the encyclopedia that anyone can edit to the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes himself or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection, and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit"[7]
I'm afraid your essay won't persuade many people - which is a shame - because you've got one very key fact wrong: I'm not a deletionist. I think this is one of the best essays that I have read on the topic: In Defense of Inclusionism In Defense of Inclusionism. I campaign constantly for a culture that is more inclusionist and kind - perhaps you should watch my speech at Wikimania this year.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello, Thewhitebox. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Walmartsucks.com, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
